I had a hard time understanding why A) is wrong but I think I get it now. A) is saying that a person's confidence in their own economic situation has an impact on how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy. The problem (I think) is that the economist doesn't fail to consider this. In fact, it's consitent with their argument. If we accept A) as true, the causal chain would go something like this: confidence in personal $ situtation --> perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. We can see how confidence would ultimately be linked to the health of the economy. It's not the new reports per se that are harmful, but rather how they are perceived, which depends on people's confidence in their personal economic situation.
On the other hand, the economist does fail to consider D). Now, the causal chain would look like this: perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> perception of personal $ situation --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. In this case, the perception of the negative news reports is the starting point. There is nothing to moderate their impact on people's confidence in the overall economy. This chain shows that the negative reports do harm the economy by decreasing people's confidence in their personal economic situation and their willingness to spend.
I knew this was a question of directionality, but I gaslighted myself under time pressure.
The argument grants us that the critics believe in the low general economic confidence. (A) Then to weaken this argument, you have to link it B, in this case, personal economic confidence.
Basically saying; Hey, even if it is B, A still leads to B regardless, which means the counter to the critics is flawed.
Getting the last one wrong I am the stupidest boy in all the world. God should strike me down so I do not shame my family with a dishonorable lsat performance.
Emotionally, this is like having your teeth pulled by a back alley dentist without anesthetic. For some reason, it gives me flashbacks of being locked in a hot car as a toddler on a hot summer day in Texas while wondering if your parent lost track of time or forgot you were in the car. Can't get out of the car, but the heat and inability to breathe tamper with your ability and will to find a way out of the hot car. It must be the despair.
I chose D correctly in timed then chose A in BR from my lack of confidence I notice I usually get it right timed and seem to constantly second guess myself afterwards.
I missed this one because I wasn't quite clear on how I needed to manage the two arguments, and what I needed the right answer to do in relation to those two arguments. Was I supposed to strengthen the original argument in order to expose a flaw in the Economist's counter-argument, or was I supposed to point out a flaw in the Economist's argument independent of the original argument?
The way I understand it now is that I needed an answer that still made it possible for news reports to affect personal confidence. So, if lack of confidence in the economy affected people's personal confidence in their finances, that leaves open the possibility that News Reports can affect confidence in the economy and thus affect their confidence in their personal finances. I just wanted an answer that started with news reports. I didn't realize you could look for connections later on the causal chain.
Okay so I got this question and the two before correct by imagining I'm Harvey Birdman doing closing statements. I imagined the flaw in the correct answer choice as something which was mentioned in the closing. All wrong answer choices just seemed like something which Harvey could actually say without being funny. But the flaw in the correct answer would be funny if Harvey mentioned it in a closing statement where the stimulus is the closing statement. Also, like, there's only one answer choice that makes sense to read in Reducto's voice. So I'm gonna keep trying this out until it doesn't work. I'll let you guys know what happens. I'll also take note of lessons where I couldn't really muster up Birdman or Reducto for whatever reason.
It felt nice to predict what the answer might be and immediately notice that the causal chain suggested in A was backward. Feeling good on the Flaws section right now.
Initially got this question wrong and chose A. During BR I was looking over my notes and breaking down each answer to double check it was both descriptively accurate and relevant to making the argument bad. Thats when re-reading D clicked into place, and for the first time this section I understood what breaking down both components actually did for analyzing AC's. Feeling optimistic!
6 seguidas dios mioooo, se me gasto el ingles pero aun seguimos invictossss
3
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
83 comments
I understand the question but damn only a 154, bruh.
The video explanation for this question was very detail and good…. So good I had to comment…. Normally I only need the written words to get it.
three wrong in a row, love it.......
Can someone explain why (A) is wrong? Is it because the directionality is wrong?
Like, (A) states:
confidence in personal economic situation --> negative reports
But it's "backwards." It should be:
negative reports --> confidence in personal economic situation
Is my understanding correct? Or is it wrong?
I had a hard time understanding why A) is wrong but I think I get it now. A) is saying that a person's confidence in their own economic situation has an impact on how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy. The problem (I think) is that the economist doesn't fail to consider this. In fact, it's consitent with their argument. If we accept A) as true, the causal chain would go something like this: confidence in personal $ situtation --> perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. We can see how confidence would ultimately be linked to the health of the economy. It's not the new reports per se that are harmful, but rather how they are perceived, which depends on people's confidence in their personal economic situation.
On the other hand, the economist does fail to consider D). Now, the causal chain would look like this: perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> perception of personal $ situation --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. In this case, the perception of the negative news reports is the starting point. There is nothing to moderate their impact on people's confidence in the overall economy. This chain shows that the negative reports do harm the economy by decreasing people's confidence in their personal economic situation and their willingness to spend.
I knew this was a question of directionality, but I gaslighted myself under time pressure.
The argument grants us that the critics believe in the low general economic confidence. (A) Then to weaken this argument, you have to link it B, in this case, personal economic confidence.
Basically saying; Hey, even if it is B, A still leads to B regardless, which means the counter to the critics is flawed.
Getting the last one wrong I am the stupidest boy in all the world. God should strike me down so I do not shame my family with a dishonorable lsat performance.
Gets this one right I am God??
Emotionally, this is like having your teeth pulled by a back alley dentist without anesthetic. For some reason, it gives me flashbacks of being locked in a hot car as a toddler on a hot summer day in Texas while wondering if your parent lost track of time or forgot you were in the car. Can't get out of the car, but the heat and inability to breathe tamper with your ability and will to find a way out of the hot car. It must be the despair.
how is "affect" the same as "cause"?
I chose D correctly in timed then chose A in BR from my lack of confidence I notice I usually get it right timed and seem to constantly second guess myself afterwards.
I missed this one because I wasn't quite clear on how I needed to manage the two arguments, and what I needed the right answer to do in relation to those two arguments. Was I supposed to strengthen the original argument in order to expose a flaw in the Economist's counter-argument, or was I supposed to point out a flaw in the Economist's argument independent of the original argument?
The way I understand it now is that I needed an answer that still made it possible for news reports to affect personal confidence. So, if lack of confidence in the economy affected people's personal confidence in their finances, that leaves open the possibility that News Reports can affect confidence in the economy and thus affect their confidence in their personal finances. I just wanted an answer that started with news reports. I didn't realize you could look for connections later on the causal chain.
POE is 👑
again, in between A and D, chose wrong!
not sure if this will help anyone, but POE has been king on these for me
idky but this section has been clicking - it's like i can understand how the descriptions fit to the stimulus? not sure (knock on wood)
ugh I can't tell why the right answer is correct, but I can feel why the wrong answers are incorrect
I need to read slower and more carefully,
An overarching theme for all LR question types I have noticed is that parallel structure between stimulus and correct answer is KEY.
Okay so I got this question and the two before correct by imagining I'm Harvey Birdman doing closing statements. I imagined the flaw in the correct answer choice as something which was mentioned in the closing. All wrong answer choices just seemed like something which Harvey could actually say without being funny. But the flaw in the correct answer would be funny if Harvey mentioned it in a closing statement where the stimulus is the closing statement. Also, like, there's only one answer choice that makes sense to read in Reducto's voice. So I'm gonna keep trying this out until it doesn't work. I'll let you guys know what happens. I'll also take note of lessons where I couldn't really muster up Birdman or Reducto for whatever reason.
Can anyone help me out with this? Not sure I understand after watching the video why its D and not A
It felt nice to predict what the answer might be and immediately notice that the causal chain suggested in A was backward. Feeling good on the Flaws section right now.
i suck at this section, YAY!
Initially got this question wrong and chose A. During BR I was looking over my notes and breaking down each answer to double check it was both descriptively accurate and relevant to making the argument bad. Thats when re-reading D clicked into place, and for the first time this section I understood what breaking down both components actually did for analyzing AC's. Feeling optimistic!
ayyyyy lets go we got it right
6 seguidas dios mioooo, se me gasto el ingles pero aun seguimos invictossss